3 ms·

Why? To save trees/paper? Or to save the planet? Where is the evidence to help me decide whether this pledge is worthwhile? Is paper production a major pollut

by ErrantX 14y ago

Why? To save trees/paper? Or to save the planet? Where is the evidence to help me decide whether this pledge is worthwhile? Is paper production a major polluter, and does it impact deforestation (I remember reading somewhere a while back that a lot of paper comes from managed woodland)? If I replace my paper with these services (assuming a lot of others do too) am I contributing a meaningful carbon footprint? I'm not saying this is a bad pledge, or one I won't take. But it seems to assume very readily that we agree using the internet instead of paper is a GOOD THING, without backing it up...

joelandren 14y ago
There's a multitude of negative effects on the water and air supply in paper production in addition to the adverse effects of removing trees from the ecosystem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper
- _delirium 14y ago
  True, but to determine a net benefit wouldn't we need the environmental impact of server farms to compare against? Server production/recycling/disposal isn't that environmentally friendly either, although it does happen on longer cycles than for the typical paper document. That said, the cloud version of digitizing is probably among the better cases, because you can aggregate even low-usage users. Home electronics like ebooks readers are probably a better skeptical case: my guess is that the disposal cycle for ebook readers is fast enough to negate the environmental benefits of less ink/paper use.
  - ErrantX 14y ago
    That all makes sense. To be honest, my innate feeling so far is that servers > paper. But this happened to spark the question in me; is this actually true? Thanks both for the info!
    - dmoo 14y ago
      It's hard to be sure, are trees for paper simply a crop that takes a long time to grow. My understanding is that the majority of trees used are conifers, so if these trees are not required for paper what else would be planted in their place? Is there any reason to believe that land would be left planted with trees if there was no money to be made by selling them. What other use would the land be put to by its owners?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Ebooks are usually used to read books, and their physical versions require way more than ink and paper. Shipping alone has a big environmental footprint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...
guiseppecalzone 14y ago
Joseph here, cofounder of HelloSign. The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of paper a year. Multiply that by the working population and that's an enormous footprint. The unfortunate part is that using that much paper is completely unnecessary, as there are services that make paper use obsolete. The problem with people going paperless isn't the technology, but the awareness that the technology exists. That's why we teamed up with Gogole Drive, Fujitsu, Expensify and others - to help people stop using paper for good.
- vasco 14y ago
  You failed to provide the proof he asked for though. What he means is, assuming a majority of the paper production comes from managed woodland, making the destruction of habitats and so on a mute argument, how does that compare to having datacenters being built everywhere, and what is better?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    The premise that paper requires less servers is odd, in my opinion. Documents come from servers anyway, the main difference is whether they go to your printer or your screen.
- corin_ 14y ago
  What's your source for saying that the average office worker uses 10k pages a year (~40 every working day)?
  - guiseppecalzone 14y ago
    Source: Small Business Association http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/small-business-matters/6-tips-going-green-and-reducing-risk-with-pap http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/small-bus...
    - Retric 14y ago
      That's hardly a meaningful source. Junk numbers have often been posted all over the place, but that does not mean there credible. 10,000 / ~ 250 work days a year = 40 pages a day. That seems really excessive even if your counting books. For example, I have not printed anything in over a year, so while there are some books and papers people give me it's no where near 40 pages a day.
imperialWicket 14y ago
'Save money.' is the first reason on the page...
vibrunazo 14y ago
I'm Brazilian, I live a few miles from an area (Mata Atlântica) where most of the original rain forest was destroyed to grow european pineapples (it's better for paper because it grows faster, the native trees take literally centuries to grow). This is what you read about as "managed woodland". Much of the fauna and flora that existed here a few decades ago are now only found in books or zoos. I can see the evidence to help me decide by literally looking at the window.
- ErrantX 14y ago
  That's actually interesting on a wider note: are those FSC woodland?
stock_toaster 14y ago
> Why? To save trees/paper? Or to save the planet? For me a major driving factor to digitization of "paperwork" is searchability. I don't know about you, but if I want to find some relevant hard copy that I don't know where it is exactly, it requires a non-insignificant amount of time to find. I have started scanning and OCR'ing things, in an attempt to make that process much quicker/easier.
melling 14y ago
Hmmmm... So, even if it was all managed woodland, someone still needs to fire up the chainsaws, put the trees on an 18-wheeler, convert it to something usable at another factory, put it on another truck that delivers it to another location, etc... There are 7 billion people on the planet, heading for 9 billion by 2050. In general, we should consider how we all impact the planet in aggregate.
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  Paper no longer uses trees. Its clay and chemicals. Ever since the home office printer got popular, trees were hopelessly too few to fill the need.
- ErrantX 14y ago
  You could break servers down that way too; each new server has a footprint in terms of the energy it uses, and the carbon footprint in creating and transporting it. If 10,000 people take this pledge, and take it seriously, does that materially have a cost too? Thought experiment.

by ErrantX 14y ago

joelandren 14y ago

There's a multitude of negative effects on the water and air supply in paper production in addition to the adverse effects of removing trees from the ecosystem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper

_delirium 14y ago
True, but to determine a net benefit wouldn't we need the environmental impact of server farms to compare against? Server production/recycling/disposal isn't that environmentally friendly either, although it does happen on longer cycles than for the typical paper document. That said, the cloud version of digitizing is probably among the better cases, because you can aggregate even low-usage users. Home electronics like ebooks readers are probably a better skeptical case: my guess is that the disposal cycle for ebook readers is fast enough to negate the environmental benefits of less ink/paper use.
- ErrantX 14y ago
  That all makes sense. To be honest, my innate feeling so far is that servers > paper. But this happened to spark the question in me; is this actually true? Thanks both for the info!
  - dmoo 14y ago
    It's hard to be sure, are trees for paper simply a crop that takes a long time to grow. My understanding is that the majority of trees used are conifers, so if these trees are not required for paper what else would be planted in their place? Is there any reason to believe that land would be left planted with trees if there was no money to be made by selling them. What other use would the land be put to by its owners?
- icebraining 14y ago
  Ebooks are usually used to read books, and their physical versions require way more than ink and paper. Shipping alone has a big environmental footprint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...

guiseppecalzone 14y ago

Joseph here, cofounder of HelloSign. The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of paper a year. Multiply that by the working population and that's an enormous footprint. The unfortunate part is that using that much paper is completely unnecessary, as there are services that make paper use obsolete. The problem with people going paperless isn't the technology, but the awareness that the technology exists. That's why we teamed up with Gogole Drive, Fujitsu, Expensify and others - to help people stop using paper for good.

vasco 14y ago
You failed to provide the proof he asked for though. What he means is, assuming a majority of the paper production comes from managed woodland, making the destruction of habitats and so on a mute argument, how does that compare to having datacenters being built everywhere, and what is better?
- icebraining 14y ago
  The premise that paper requires less servers is odd, in my opinion. Documents come from servers anyway, the main difference is whether they go to your printer or your screen.
corin_ 14y ago
What's your source for saying that the average office worker uses 10k pages a year (~40 every working day)?
- guiseppecalzone 14y ago
  Source: Small Business Association http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/small-business-matters/6-tips-going-green-and-reducing-risk-with-pap http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/small-bus...
  - Retric 14y ago
    That's hardly a meaningful source. Junk numbers have often been posted all over the place, but that does not mean there credible. 10,000 / ~ 250 work days a year = 40 pages a day. That seems really excessive even if your counting books. For example, I have not printed anything in over a year, so while there are some books and papers people give me it's no where near 40 pages a day.

imperialWicket 14y ago

'Save money.' is the first reason on the page...

vibrunazo 14y ago

I'm Brazilian, I live a few miles from an area (Mata Atlântica) where most of the original rain forest was destroyed to grow european pineapples (it's better for paper because it grows faster, the native trees take literally centuries to grow). This is what you read about as "managed woodland". Much of the fauna and flora that existed here a few decades ago are now only found in books or zoos. I can see the evidence to help me decide by literally looking at the window.

ErrantX 14y ago
That's actually interesting on a wider note: are those FSC woodland?

stock_toaster 14y ago

> Why? To save trees/paper? Or to save the planet? For me a major driving factor to digitization of "paperwork" is searchability. I don't know about you, but if I want to find some relevant hard copy that I don't know where it is exactly, it requires a non-insignificant amount of time to find. I have started scanning and OCR'ing things, in an attempt to make that process much quicker/easier.

melling 14y ago

Hmmmm... So, even if it was all managed woodland, someone still needs to fire up the chainsaws, put the trees on an 18-wheeler, convert it to something usable at another factory, put it on another truck that delivers it to another location, etc... There are 7 billion people on the planet, heading for 9 billion by 2050. In general, we should consider how we all impact the planet in aggregate.

JoeAltmaier 14y ago
Paper no longer uses trees. Its clay and chemicals. Ever since the home office printer got popular, trees were hopelessly too few to fill the need.
ErrantX 14y ago
You could break servers down that way too; each new server has a footprint in terms of the energy it uses, and the carbon footprint in creating and transporting it. If 10,000 people take this pledge, and take it seriously, does that materially have a cost too? Thought experiment.